Title, director and release year? Title: The Corporation Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot Release Year: 2003
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Corporations represent great wealth and success, but they may cause great environmental and social harm. Corporations are global and have a great reach. In general, corporations are a group of individuals working together for a common objective, namely profit. This documentary is about treating corporations morally as a person because it has the legal status of a person.
In the past, corporations were considered an entity that were a gift from the people that were meant to serve a pubic good. Since then, this impression has drastically changed. In the mid-1800s, under the 14th amendment, corporations were legally defined as a person, even though this amendment was meant to protect african americans. Ever since then, corporations rose up in dominance. As a person, corporations have the ability to buy and sell, sue and be sued, but corporations lack the moral conscience that people have.
For instance, sweatshop workers employed by corporations are payed very little. At Nike, these workers get payed $0.03 for every $15 shirt. Also, they are given 6.6 minutes to make a shirt. Additionally, corporations, such as Monsanto, participate in bad practices, such as injecting Posilac, an artificial hormone, into cows, which cause infections in udders and pus which gets into the milk. Also, Monsanto’s Agent Orange caused many birth defects and a wide variety of illnesses, and does not take responsibility for the devastation.
Also, corporations pollute, since it’s not an economical commodity to be environmentally sustainable. The environment is in decline because it takes from the environment and wastes it and return it to the landfill. We are destroying the environment for future generations.
In general, there are plenty of unethical practices that corporations participate in, and this film covers a great range of them.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Corporations are recognized legally as a person, but don’t necessarily suffer the same consequences a person would for the damages they do. Additionally, giving private ownership over natural resources like land, air and water is ridiculous and causes a great deal of problems. If we don’t change the way corporations behave now, pretty soon there will be private ownership of every cubic foot of the planet. Additionally, corporations are global, and because they are global, it is difficult to control them.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the most interesting fact the film brought up was that Fanta was a Nazi Drink because Coca Cola didn’t want to sell Coke to Nazi Germany, so it came up with a new drink to preserve it’s image but keep up its profit. Also, IBM punch cards were an integral to the concentration camps. The Nazis needed a system to keep track of its prisoners, why they were there and their fate. Without IBM, the concentration camps would not have been able to control as many prisoners as they did.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced by the method the film chose to diagnose corporations as a psychopath. The DSM is not a straight forward test to diagnose sociopaths.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I want to learn more about genetically modified organisms and their patentability. I learned a little bit through my “Don’t Worry About It” presentation, but I believe this area is going to become more important in the future.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe this film best addresses an audience who is open minded and does not express unconditional loyalty to any corporation because this film does present a lot of disturbing facts about what corporations have done in the past, and if say a viewer was unconditionally loyal to Monsanto, they would not be able to process the information as the director intended. I believe this film encourages viewers to think twice when it comes to corporations and their practices. Their loyalty is not necessarily to their customers and their well being, it is almost always for the profit. I think viewers will think twice about corporations and what they stand for.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I believe the film suggests that policies need to change, such as removing a corporation’s identity as a person and not allowing corporations to patent life. Also, it is suggested that there needs to be some consequences for corporations and way to place blame.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe if the film in general was very educational because it presented a lot of things that I didn’t know about before watching the film. I believe if perhaps the film offered steps to changing policy in order to change how corporations operate it would have been nice.
The Corporation
Title, director and release year?
Title: The Corporation
Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot
Release Year: 2003
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Corporations represent great wealth and success, but they may cause great environmental and social harm. Corporations are global and have a great reach. In general, corporations are a group of individuals working together for a common objective, namely profit. This documentary is about treating corporations morally as a person because it has the legal status of a person.
In the past, corporations were considered an entity that were a gift from the people that were meant to serve a pubic good. Since then, this impression has drastically changed. In the mid-1800s, under the 14th amendment, corporations were legally defined as a person, even though this amendment was meant to protect african americans. Ever since then, corporations rose up in dominance. As a person, corporations have the ability to buy and sell, sue and be sued, but corporations lack the moral conscience that people have.
For instance, sweatshop workers employed by corporations are payed very little. At Nike, these workers get payed $0.03 for every $15 shirt. Also, they are given 6.6 minutes to make a shirt. Additionally, corporations, such as Monsanto, participate in bad practices, such as injecting Posilac, an artificial hormone, into cows, which cause infections in udders and pus which gets into the milk. Also, Monsanto’s Agent Orange caused many birth defects and a wide variety of illnesses, and does not take responsibility for the devastation.
Also, corporations pollute, since it’s not an economical commodity to be environmentally sustainable. The environment is in decline because it takes from the environment and wastes it and return it to the landfill. We are destroying the environment for future generations.
In general, there are plenty of unethical practices that corporations participate in, and this film covers a great range of them.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Corporations are recognized legally as a person, but don’t necessarily suffer the same consequences a person would for the damages they do. Additionally, giving private ownership over natural resources like land, air and water is ridiculous and causes a great deal of problems. If we don’t change the way corporations behave now, pretty soon there will be private ownership of every cubic foot of the planet. Additionally, corporations are global, and because they are global, it is difficult to control them.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the most interesting fact the film brought up was that Fanta was a Nazi Drink because Coca Cola didn’t want to sell Coke to Nazi Germany, so it came up with a new drink to preserve it’s image but keep up its profit. Also, IBM punch cards were an integral to the concentration camps. The Nazis needed a system to keep track of its prisoners, why they were there and their fate. Without IBM, the concentration camps would not have been able to control as many prisoners as they did.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced by the method the film chose to diagnose corporations as a psychopath. The DSM is not a straight forward test to diagnose sociopaths.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I want to learn more about genetically modified organisms and their patentability. I learned a little bit through my “Don’t Worry About It” presentation, but I believe this area is going to become more important in the future.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe this film best addresses an audience who is open minded and does not express unconditional loyalty to any corporation because this film does present a lot of disturbing facts about what corporations have done in the past, and if say a viewer was unconditionally loyal to Monsanto, they would not be able to process the information as the director intended. I believe this film encourages viewers to think twice when it comes to corporations and their practices. Their loyalty is not necessarily to their customers and their well being, it is almost always for the profit. I think viewers will think twice about corporations and what they stand for.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I believe the film suggests that policies need to change, such as removing a corporation’s identity as a person and not allowing corporations to patent life. Also, it is suggested that there needs to be some consequences for corporations and way to place blame.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe if the film in general was very educational because it presented a lot of things that I didn’t know about before watching the film. I believe if perhaps the film offered steps to changing policy in order to change how corporations operate it would have been nice.